PDA

View Full Version : "slimmer doesn't always mean fitter"


snoopy
02-03-2010, 10:35 AM
This article doesn't tell you anything that common sense couldn't but I'm linking to it bc it notes Agassi's ideal playing weight on the second page.


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/04/fashion/04best.html?hpw

Xenakis
02-03-2010, 10:42 AM
Interesting article thanks.

charliefedererer
02-03-2010, 12:54 PM
This is a good companion piece to the recent Wall Street Journal Article, The Scales Can Lie: Hidden Fat http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=The+scales+can+lie%3A+hidden+fat&aq=f&aqi=&oq=&fp=5d520af73999f042
The main point of this article is that some fairly thin looking folks out there have little muscle from lack of exercise, so can have a fair amount of body fat and still not look obese. Yet their relatively high percentage of body fat can still expose them to an increased risk of high blood pressure, high cholesterol, heart disease and diabetes.

So maybe Billy Crystal (aka Fernando Lamas) was wrong when he told us, "It is not how you feel, but how you look."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZl3gGV4H6c

Topaz
02-03-2010, 01:00 PM
Interesting read, thanks for posting!

FastFreddy
02-03-2010, 03:55 PM
This article doesn't tell you anything that common sense couldn't but I'm linking to it bc it notes Agassi's ideal playing weight on the second page.


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/04/fashion/04best.html?hpw

I doubt Andre was 5'11 1/2 more like 5'10. Malivai Washington was listed at 5'11 but I met him in person at the US Open and I am 5'10 3/4 and was taller than him.

LeeD
02-03-2010, 04:05 PM
As normal, none of these "studies" mean jack shi. .
You know that, I know that.
Doesn't account for type, density, tons of varying factors.
I'm 5'10" and 3/4, which I round off into 5'11". I"m 147 right now, grossly out of shape...it's winter, what can I do except EAT.
During the spring/summer, about the same weight, but much more in shape.
I've been out of shape at 133 lbs., when I was under 35 years old. Also, I was in great shape at about that ....running for motocross training, ExpertPro rating with AMA.
Weight alone has nothing to do with being in or out of shape.
All my 6 decades, I'd sink to the bottom of a swimming pool with a shortie wetsuit on. Without the wetsuit, I can stay down forever (speculation, as obviously I haven't tried that quite successfully YET).

cpmoran
02-03-2010, 04:37 PM
it all depend on the person. I am 6'0 and right now i'm 195. In the summer I'm 175 with 8% body fat.
I also dont believe that Federer is 186 @ 6'1" he looks 160 at the most. Anyway it all depends on how much muscle you have, if you are lean and fit you can weigh more.
I would love to see a tennis player that can move like Reggie Bush and he is 6 feet 203 lbs and can change directions like a motha. JMO

LeeD
02-03-2010, 04:42 PM
No way Federer is more than 165, prolly closer 10 less.
Tsonga is your idea mover at that size.
Everyone who watched Agassi knows his best playing weight is 155. He can say whatever, he just wants to think that.
Hewitt is the same height, at 155. Similar build.
At 5'10 and 3/4", and 133lbs., I played 5th round Q for TransAmerica T in SanFrancisco against RussellSimpson, at 6'3" and 150 lbs. He went to the final and lost.
What do you really think AndyMurray weighs? And DJ.

cpmoran
02-03-2010, 05:20 PM
Its nice to see I'm not the only who thinks the pros lie about their weight. Murry is 6'3? I would say he is 170 maybe, he has a little muscle but very little fat. I dont see how Agassi was 187, unless he was a block under that huge shirt, he legs were super strong but didnt look huge. Just did a quick google search. this guy is 5'10 like agassi but the bodies arent even close to the same thing http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.jimmachak.com/brianspick2.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.jimmachak.com/chadshaw.html&usg=__DMkCTu2ZpGCQ6CN4MjWShhQL6_M=&h=450&w=600&sz=55&hl=en&start=12&um=1&itbs=1&tbnid=LFZcQTkk7bqliM:&tbnh=101&tbnw=135&prev=/images%3Fq%3D188%2Blb%2Bbodybuilders%26hl%3Den%26s a%3DN%26um%3D1

LeeD
02-03-2010, 05:27 PM
I'd think, Murray is closer to 6', and about 155lbs.
Fed is 6', maybe a hair more, and there's plenty of photos of the two standing together, and they're the same height.
DJ might be a hair taller again, but barely 160. His calves are bigger.

cpmoran
02-03-2010, 05:35 PM
After looking back to see if that guy from google had some legs. It seems he was wearing jeans and no shirt and all shots were from the waist up, maybe he has legs like fed's left arm. We actually paused the as open last weekend during a Fed serve and my wife compared left arms and her's seemed bigger @120 5'5. Gonna get some zzz had a killer leg workout today.

WildVolley
02-03-2010, 05:58 PM
I'd think, Murray is closer to 6', and about 155lbs.
Fed is 6', maybe a hair more, and there's plenty of photos of the two standing together, and they're the same height.
DJ might be a hair taller again, but barely 160. His calves are bigger.

I think that Murray exaggerates his height a little, but he definitely weighs over 155lbs at the moment. He is visibly more muscular than when he started playing tennis. I'm 6'2" and about 172lbs and I look a little less muscular than Andy. So, I'd guess you are underestimating his weight by about 20lbs.

Federer is so thin that it is hard to believe his quoted weight is accurate.

T Woody
02-04-2010, 11:11 AM
I find it odd that the author is focusing so much on weight rather than body fat. The fact that performance increases on a treadmill with less gravity and performance decreases when you add ankle weights and wrist weights are the no brainers of the century. Of course someone with X amount of muscle mass will perform worse when you add dead weight to them. But what happens if you add 10 lbs of muscle to their frame?

It's not about overall weight, but about how much useful muscle you have to move your body around. Obviously for something like tennis, you wouldn't want to be built like Ronnie Coleman even though he has super low BF, but you'd have to think all things being equal, you'd take a guy at 175 lbs and 8%bf over someone 165 lbs and 15% bf. But by her standard of just focusing on weight, these things are nebulous. Seems like she's almost playing to the crowd of readership and going with something simple rather than really diving into performance.

charliefedererer
02-04-2010, 11:17 AM
I find it odd that the author is focusing so much on weight rather than body fat. The fact that performance increases on a treadmill with less gravity and performance decreases when you add ankle weights and wrist weights are the no brainers of the century. Of course someone with X amount of muscle mass will perform worse when you add dead weight to them. But what happens if you add 10 lbs of muscle to their frame?

It's not about overall weight, but about how much useful muscle you have to move your body around. Obviously for something like tennis, you wouldn't want to be built like Ronnie Coleman even though he has super low BF, but you'd have to think all things being equal, you'd take a guy at 175 lbs and 8%bf over someone 165 lbs and 15% bf. But by her standard of just focusing on weight, these things are nebulous. Seems like she's almost playing to the crowd of readership and going with something simple rather than really diving into performance.

Well said.
That's why I put the "companion piece" on percent body fat up there. Weight alone can be very misleading to whether someone is fit.

LeeD
02-04-2010, 11:30 AM
As normal, none of these studies is worth jack sh.t. You know it, I know it.
Statistics can be manipulated any way the author decides to play with it.
And they never factor in all the variables.
Just a fact of life.

charliefedererer
02-04-2010, 12:29 PM
As normal, none of these studies is worth jack sh.t. You know it, I know it.
Statistics can be manipulated any way the author decides to play with it.
And they never factor in all the variables.
Just a fact of life.

Part of the big problem in clinical studies is that in order to isolate the one variable that is attempted to be studied, the study bears little resemblence to what happens in real life. Another big problem is that the clinical studies are often way too short with not enough individuals to get more meaningful data. And the biggest may be that it's a "publish or perish" world in acedemia, where fifty lousy, but published studies will get you a full professorship, while a handful of great studies won't even get you tenure.
Still, there is an occasional really worthwhile study.

T Woody
02-04-2010, 12:38 PM
Yeah very true. Also the vast majority of nutrition and health related studies are observational, which make it next to impossible to isolate variables. So you'll have studies saying meat kills you because more people in the 'high meat' group died after ten years than the 'low meat' group. Though they forget to mention the fact that those prone to eating more meat also happened to eat 50% more calories, exercised less, and smoked a pack a day. Frustrating.

LeeD
02-04-2010, 02:01 PM
I like the idea of force feeding rats 10 times their body weight in meat, and when they die kinda early, it's the MEAT's fault.
Nothing to do with the forcefeeding or the amount, of course.

T Woody
02-04-2010, 02:19 PM
Right, or when they conduct meat studies using little herbivore critters as test subjects. Wow big surprise that you make rabbits sick by force feeding them lots of saturated fat laden meat! This MUST mean meat and saturated fat is terrible and will kill humans! Oh wait, our digestive systems are totally different than an herbivore...

Zachol82
02-04-2010, 05:41 PM
If by slimmer you mean just cutting down weight and fat, becoming skinnier, then no, that would not mean that you're fit.

Being fit usually means good body composition, low body-fat and good muscle mass.

Muscles = power. Less fat = more efficient in terms of energy, endurance, stamina and agility. If you just lose fat alone, which you can never do since you will lose muscles along with fat, then you will lose all your power. If you just gain muscle mass alone without losing fat, then you'd look all bulky and big.

Even if you're able to gain muscle mass AND lose body-fat, there's still the whole situation of what kind of muscle did you gain? If all you have is static strength, then you're strong, but that form of power wont be very useful in tennis.

So yes, slimmer doesn't always mean fitter, however, losing weight in general is a good way to start. Most people will lose fat and muscle mass together, in order to lose weight. Then afterward, you can start eating leaner meat with more protein, along with weight-training, to rebuild the muscle mass that you've lost.

jimanuel12
02-05-2010, 05:46 AM
This article doesn't tell you anything that common sense couldn't but I'm linking to it bc it notes Agassi's ideal playing weight on the second page.


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/04/fashion/04best.html?hpw

interesting article, but i know from my own experience, when i weighted 220 i felt like *****. i could not get my breath, could not climb a flight of stairs, could not move because i was shoving food in my face all the time.
when i got back to 180 (i am 6'3"), i feel allot better and i can move around the court, before i could not get out of one place i was so fat.
so, i think it has allot to do with the indiviual person.
i had always been slim, until i got older, then started putting on the pounds.
now that i am back to 180 i feel 10 years younger.
my two cents worth.

Xenakis
02-05-2010, 06:17 AM
Nalby is a good example of this perhaps (though as I fan I am slightly biased perhaps.)

Although his bulk isn't good for his joints (arguably) it doesn't seem to affect his speed/fitness. He outlasted Federer in the 2005 Masters Final and he wasn't exactly slim then (for a tennis player anyway.)